International Journal for Parasitology: Drugs and Drug Resistance 2 (2012) 162–165 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect International Journal for Parasitology: Drugs and Drug Resistance journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpddr Brief Report Is paromomycin the drug of choice for eradication of Dientamoeba fragilis in adults? ⇑ Jaap J. van Hellemond a,c, , Nicky Molhoek b, Rob Koelewijn c, Pieter J. Wismans b, Perry J.J. van Genderen b a Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center and Harbor Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands b Department of Internal Medicine, Harbor Hospital and Institute for Tropical Diseases, Rotterdam, The Netherlands c Laboratory for Parasitology, Harbor Hospital and Institute for Tropical Diseases, Rotterdam, The Netherlands article info abstract Article history: Dientamoeba fragilis is a debated protozoan parasite that is often detected in stools of patients with Received 24 February 2012 chronic gastro-intestinal complaints. A retrospective follow-up study of a large cohort of patients was Received in revised form 24 March 2012 performed to better understand the natural course of the infection and possible treatment options. D. fra- Accepted 28 March 2012 gilis was spontaneously cleared in 41% of untreated cases. With an eradication rate of 98%, treatment with Available online 14 April 2012 paromomycin appeared more effective than treatment with clioquinol (83%) or metronidazole (57%). Ó 2012 Australian Society for Parasitology Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dientamoeba fragilis Metronidazole Parasite Diarrhea 1. Introduction investigated by a single study only. So far, only a single randomized study has been performed in which the treatment efficacy of metro- Dientamoeba (D.) fragilis is one of the most common protozoan nidazole was compared to that of ornidazole (Kurt et al., 2008) and organisms detected in human stools, with reported frequencies up all other studies had a retrospective study design. These studies re- to 30% (Johnson et al., 2004; Stensvold et al., 2007; Schuster and ported eradication efficacies that were either low (50% for erythro- Jackson, 2009; Barratt et al., 2011). D. fragilis was originally de- mycin (Preiss et al., 1991), 75% for doxycycline (Preiss et al., 1991), scribed as an a-pathogenic protozoan organism, but over the years and 67–89% for metronidazole (Vandenberg et al., 2006; Stark et al., many reports have provided indications for the pathogenic poten- 2010), or the result of very small retrospective cohort studies tial of D. fragilis (Johnson et al., 2004; Barratt et al., 2011). Abdom- involving maximal 27, 12, 9 and 15 patients for clioquinol (81– inal pain and diarrhea are commonly reported in patients infected 100% (Bosman et al., 2004; Stark et al., 2010)), iodoquinol (83– with D. fragilis in the absence of other bowel pathogens (Barratt 100% (Spencer et al., 1982; Millet et al., 1983), diphetarsone (100% et al., 2011). Furthermore, eradication of D. fragilis by treatment (Keystone et al., 1983)) and paromomycin (80–100% (Vandenberg is frequently associated with clinical improvement of symptoms et al., 2007; Stark et al., 2010)), respectively. Two compounds, sec- (Girginkardesler et al., 2003; Bosman et al., 2004; Johnson et al., nidazol and ornidazol, were reported by single studies to have a 2004; Vandenberg et al., 2007). For these reasons, persisting high eradication efficacy for D. fragilis (93% and 97%, respectively) D. fragilis infestations are often treated with the intention to erad- in 56 and 34 patients (Girginkardesler et al., 2003; Kurt et al., icate this protozoon from the gut. 2008). Finally, it is unclear to what extent D. fragilis infections are Although D. fragilis infections are frequently detected and trea- spontaneously cleared, which may further hamper the interpreta- ted, there is no consensus as to the best treatment for dientamoebi- tion of data regarding the eradication rates associated with some asis (Johnson et al., 2004; Barratt et al., 2011). Until now only 11 drugs. Therefore, the current information on the efficacy of drugs studies on the efficacy of drugs to eradicate D. fragilis have been for eradication of D. fragilis is surprisingly small and hampers the published (see Table 1 for an overview). These 11 studies investi- formulation of unambiguous guidelines for treatment of dient- gated the efficacy of 12 distinct drugs, of which eight drugs were amoebiasis, which is for instance demonstrated by the listing of four recommended drugs for treatment of dientamoebiasis in the latest Medical Letter (2010). ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Medical Microbiology and In order to better understand the natural course of the disease Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre and Rotterdam Harbor and the efficacy of potential treatment options, we analyzed the re- Hospital, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 10 7033510; sults of a retrospective follow-up study of a relatively large cohort fax: +31 7033875. of 93 patients with a documented D. fragilis infection. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J. van Hellemond). 2211-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Australian Society for Parasitology Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpddr.2012.03.002 J.J. van Hellemond et al. / International Journal for Parasitology: Drugs and Drug Resistance 2 (2012) 162–165 163 Table 1 3. Results and discussion Reported parasitological cure rate for Dientamoeba fragilis. Drug Efficacy Patients included Ref. In the study period 5491 outpatients were examined for gastro- (%) (n) intestinal parasites by TFT and D. fragilis was demonstrated in stools Clioquinol 100 3 Bosman et al. (2004) of 451 patients (8%) of which 93 patients fulfilled the inclusion crite- 81 27 Stark et al. (2010) ria. General demographic and clinical characteristics of the included Diphetarsone 100 9 Keystone et al. (1983) patients with D. fragilis at presentation are shown in Table 2. Doxycycline 75 4 Preiss et al. (1991) Diarrhea (42%), abdominal pain (37%) and malaise (51%) were Erythromycin 50 6 Preiss et al. (1991) frequently observed. The laboratory parameters C-reactive protein, Hydroxychinoline 20 5 Preiss et al. (1991) Iodoquinol 83 12 Millet et al. (1983) leukocyte and eosinophil counts were not elevated (Table 2). Pa- 100 3 Spencer et al. (1982) tients with D. fragilis frequently had co-infestations with Blastocystis Metronidazole 84 41 Banik et al. (2011) sp. (74%) and a-pathogenic protozoa (<10% for individual species) 89 28 Stark et al. (2010) (Table 2). 70 56 Kurt et al. (2008) The 93 included patients received a total of 102 treatments. 67 12 Vandenberg et al. Three patients received two treatments (first no treatment fol- (2006) lowed by paromomycin treatment) and another three patients re- 69 10 Bosman et al. (2004) 70 91 Preiss et al. (1991) ceived three subsequent treatments (one received no treatment first, then metronidazole treatment and finally paromomycin Ornidazole 93 56 Kurt et al. (2008) Oxytetracycline 90 9 Preiss et al. (1991) treatment, another received paromomycin treatment first, fol- Paromomycin 100 5 Stark et al. (2010) lowed by two treatments with metronidazole, and the third patient 80 15 Vandenberg et al. received paromomycin treatment first, then no treatment and then (2007) paromomycin treatment combined with doxycycline). Therefore, 100 4 Vandenberg et al. (2006) results could be examined of 102 treatments with either paromo- mycin (n = 61), clioquinol (n = 12), metronidazole (n =7) or no Secnidazole 97 34 Girginkardesler et al. (2003) treatment (n = 22). This ‘wait and see’ policy was considered to represent the natural course of D. fragilis infestation. In 30 treat- ment cases (paromomycin n = 27, clioquinol n = 2, metronidazole n = 1) treatment was combined with doxycycline. Mean time be- tween analysis of subsequent stool samples was 62–76 days and did not differ significantly between treatment regimens. Because 2. Materials and methods treatment was not started directly after laboratory diagnosis of This retrospective cohort study was performed at the Institute for Tropical Diseases of the Harbor Hospital in Rotterdam, The Neth- erlands, which is a national referral center for adult patients who re- Table 2 cently visited tropical countries. Patients were included when Characteristics of patients at presentation with a Dientamoeba fragilis infestation. D. fragilis was demonstrated in a stool sample analyzed in the period Demographic data n % 2004–2010 by Triple Feces Test (TFT), an all-round and sensitive Patients 93 method for microscopic detection of ‘helminth ova and protozoa, Age (median, IQR) 41 (29, 49) among which trophozoites of D. fragilis (van Gool et al., 2003). In Male gender 27 29 addition, a follow-up stool sample had to be available for evaluation Female gender 66 71 a of an empirical treatment or for evaluation of the natural course of Visit to the (sub) tropics (n = 78) 72 92 the infestation in case of untreated patients. The majority of the in- Clinical symptoms n % cluded patients had gastro-intestinal symptoms and all were diag- Duration of complaints (n = 70)a nosed with D. fragilis after exclusion of viral, bacterial and 0–1 month 7 10 parasitological causes of gastro-intestinal illness by thorough inves- 1–3 months 6 9 3–6 months 11 16 tigations including fecal cultures for pathogenic bacteria (Salmo- More than 6 months 46 66 nella, Shigella